Established in 2008, this blog is an independent, common sense, look at challenges and opportunities in sports and financial investing, with occasional diversions as my mood takes me. I am not a tipster, nor is this a Profit and Loss report either. They are boring.

Sunday, 28 March 2010

I should just ignore the Anonymous comments, I really should, but some are so amusingly ridiculous, that they really deserve a bigger audience. Besides, it makes it easy to find a theme for the next post.Today we have several gems starting with this one:

Casinos are happy to let punters martingale because the edge is in their favour and the house limit will always catch people out not or they run out of money not because martingale doesn't work. You need to understand probabilites of expected winning/losings runs before spouting your usual crap of I'm right you're wrong

Apparently someone missed that I did in fact say that casinos have no problem with, and in fact encourage, Martingale bettors. I assumed that the reason was too obvious to mention, but for anyone out there who is unaware of the fact, casinos typically limit the maximum stake to 500 times the minimum so that after a run of eight losers it is impossible to bet the 512 units required. Then we have this:

Whereever there's money they'll be professional players so to say there are no pro roulette of craps players is laughable, I guess they're aren't any pro blackjack players either as the edge is always with the house

Since games such as blackjack and poker are games of skill and strategy, of course there are professional players. However, roulette and craps are games where the expected value of every bet is negative.Anonymous continues:

Sleazynick haven't you heard of Kim Larsen or Christian Kaisan.

If anyone has devised a system to beat roulette, a game that has been around since the 18th century, then this would truly be an achievement. Basic mathematical laws would have to be turned on their head, and such an achievement would be more deserving of a Fields Medal than scepticism. The only explanation must be that Kim Larsen and Christian Kaisan are over the age of 40, and are thus ineligible. Perhaps they will be recognised later this year, or will be awarded next year's Abel Prize? Somehow, I doubt it.Perhaps their claimed 'skills' are that they can rapidly assess the location and speed of the delivery of the ball and the speed of the wheel and rapidly compute where the ball will approximately land, but even if that were true, they would be limited to real casinos (rather than online ones) and with a limited number in the world such a talented individual would soon find themselves banned from all. In fact, Kim Larsen claimed to have been banned from four Las Vegas casinos in a 2005 news 'release' (news released by himself!) - not to be confused with news 'fact'. In fact, no evidence of such a ban has been verified.Finally, for now, we have this:

Incidentally, did you know Swansea's last 21 (more in fact, but can't be bothered to check) have all gone under 6.5 goals. I'm happy to go with the flow on this and play the under 6.5 every time as there's probably a reason for it. If someone's prepared to oppose me on the exchanges then all the better.

Indeed, if such a market were available, this could very well be a profitable strategy. In a slightly sensible comment, Anonymous does mention the importance of value, perhaps thinking that I would momentarily forget this key point in my haste to back Unders at any price, but strangely enough, even after a run of Unders, the price on Under 2.5 goals never hit 1.01 (or even close). Had it done so, I would be on Over 2.5 goals, confident that despite the current run, I would have value on my side.The 100,000 hits has been reached! If I only had £1 for each hit...

I once had a very long discussion with someone who was convinced price didn't matter and it was about finding the winner. If it wins, you get paid, you are in the black etc. If you lose, who cares what price you paid.. and so on.

About Me

I have had a life-long interest in sports and after studying Pure Mathematics with Statistics at secondary school, have been fascinated by odds and probability.
The first system I came up with was a simple one - back the favourite and double up after a loss until a winner. Simple enough in theory, and I told my Dad about it. Not being a betting man himself, he ran it by some of his colleagues, and came home to tell me that it wouldn’t work because a long losing run would mean that the bank would be empty. Then there was always the possibility that the winner would be returned at odds-on, meaning that the total returns would not match the outlay. Not what a ten year old wants to hear! Only slightly daunted, I then went on a search for the Holy Grail, the secret to riches that I knew was out there somewhere. Finally in 2004 I stumbled across an article about Betting Exchanges and four years on I am able to make a steady profit. I am at that age where I can start thinking about retirement and anything I make from trading sports will bring that day forward.